D&D 5/NEXT - First Impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Miz

Miz

Level 20 Mizard
So I know that D&D 5 or D&D NEXT (whichever you prefer) is still some ways off from being fully released. However Wizards of the Coast has released the beta for some time and is now releasing some content from the Player's Handbooks along with art.


Recently they released excerpts from the Player's Handbook including the Sorcerer and the Table of Contents: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Contents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook


While I was trained by @Pineapple on D&D 2.5, I have DM games in D&D 4 and D&D 3.5 (as well as Pathfinder). The two of us (Pineapple and I) are also making a custom D20 system as a side project. With those things in mind, I personally prefer the 3.5 and Pathfinder approach to systems as there are more roleplay mechanics compared to the D&D 4. However while I think D&D 5 is also backtracking on some changes that D&D 4 made that made it simplier to a "video-game", they also seem to be including some stuff to simplify the overall game (like what D&D 4 was supposed to do).


I don't know that much about any new features though.


Here's the beta Character Sheet - http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/winner_chsheet.jpg


The name aside, I am curious if anyone has any experience with the fifth edition or has any comments about it. I personally only have looked through the promotional material and read some columns about it.
 
I was in on the early beta testing releases back a year or more ago. It was... A welcome relief from what 4th Edition was, but I don't think it's completely a step in the right direction. They have indeed tried to fix a lot of their previous problems, but it's not quite there yet, I feel. It's working toward it, though. I just hope that they address the biggest issue of all time from 3.5: oversaturation with material and source books. That was the most painful thing ever to experience.


.


I'll jump on the Pathfinder/3.5 bandwagon, though. They really are just better, objectively. Then again, when compared to 4th Edition, it's hard to be worse. I'll probably be there to give it a go-around when the time comes, though. It should be interesting to give NEXT a shot.
 
So,


I remember seeing this when it was one of the first early editions ever visible to the public, since I applied to alpha or beta or what ever it was called. I remember thinking its a piece of crap.


Now two weeks before launch, where I can see the latest up to update rules and such? I think its pretty amazing the direction they've gone.


It seems like Pathfinder in terms of indepthness but much simpler then pathfinder, 3.5, etc.


Of course, that is just all from reading it, only playing it will actually tell.
 
I am just greatly amused that some of the most popular changes that were made in Pathfinder seem to have found their way into 5e. Sorcerous Origins sound very suspiciously like someone avoiding some copyrights.
 
I have my hands on the basic rules, and I would love to play a game when it comes out for real. My only regret is that I'll have to buy an actual book instead of a PDF :(
 
Welp I've seen it. And while I am thrilled that the main setting is Faerun, I am very underwhelmed by it. Especially the part where they just snatched all the good in Pathfinder and boiled it down.
 
Morningstar seems rad, I always appreciate something to help me put a character sheet together.


Not that up to date with Faerun, any chance I could get a TL;DR of it?
 
I haven't picked it back up to read yet. But the TLDR version of what they did to Faerun was basically "So let's kill the Goddess of Magic by making her get whacked over the head in her own domain and then destroy half the world with a Spellplague that ruins every character that everyone ever loved."
 
The idea that there is a god/dess of magic has always annoyed me, so I can't say I'm sorry to hear she got offed. The other stuff seems lame, though.
 
Well it wasn't so much that she was offed, so much as they basically handed her the idiot ball to do it. "Hey, let's invite my two worst enemies into my domain where I am omniscient, and then turn my back on them so they can sneak up and whack me on the head."
 
FR got really weird in 4.0 but that is where I started reading about it. Though I quickly retracted back to 3.5 and started getting more into the setting. I am not really sure about how the main setting change from basically Greyhawk to Forgotten Realms really works out for Faerun. As in 4.0 there felt like a lot of mandatory changes just to make FR fit the default more. It always felt like Wizard of the Coast manhandling the setting... So will there just be more of that? That's my concern.
 
Reading more into it, it looks more like they used it as an example (and a reverted example, all the gods they screwed are back in the list) because they have some blurbs and the god lists of the other settings in the back. I'm still very underwhelmed by the whole thing but this is just the basic phb. We'll see when setting books etc start to show up.
 
I got Players Handbook today (considering I am at overseas it came pretty fast actually :P ) Before I write my first impressions about book I will give a couple of pre-impressions when I first heard which books will contain what.


Point 1) A little background I started playing RPG with DnD 2nd editon at 1999 so when 3rd edition came out I was still fresh and I was really happy to have fighters having many options and seeing a monk class integrated (a big fan of samurai, kensei and ninja at that time and monk was my third favorite class all over after kensai and ninja sharing spot with samurai) however my playgroup was not that open to change and I was forced to DM most of 3rd edition game if I want to experience it at all, I was not a good DM at that time and soon others stoped playing in my games all together at which point I moved on other rpg's but that is not related on topic. When 3.5 came out I didn't move to that system for a long time until psinoic handbook released for 3.5 and I found some supplement books that caught my interest.


Point 2) When 4th edition came out I really liked it. I know it sounds odd for someone like me who spend most of his time with 3.x editions but I really liked class changes (particularly boost for non-spell casters and nerf for spell-casters) however I hit another dead-end not only my old group still plays 2nd edition my new group never wanted to leave 3.5 edition (and later I think they moved to pathfinder) I never liked pathfinder I don't know why it just neverr stroke my interest as 4th edition did. What I consider as good points of 4th edition were;


a) the players handbook was not soleyl written for spellcasters with a 1/3rd to 1/4th ratio each classes got same amount of space give or take.


b) all three book released at same time which was a bonus when 3rd editions books came at seperate times.


c) magical items moved to Players Handbook so for a player only book needed was player handbook no need to look at DM Guide for magical items.


Now returning to point when I learned all three books will be released different times and magical items moving back to DM Guide I was a little disappointed because this is obviously a marketing move rather than a necessary one. Since now all players will buy DM Guide too although it should be a book solely for DM's and selling them one at a time means they will be releasing a complete basic set later just how they did with 3rd and 3.5 edition which is a move to sell even more (probably these complete sets will not have corrected printing and will be just made out of first print books that didn't sell)


When I got book today I had many conflicting feelings as one can guess. I didn't read all book yet I only checked a couple of races and a coupe of classes (namely barbarian, fighter and monk) than checked other parts of book to see what has changed as a whole for system.


1) This system makes multiclassing easier what do i mean? First there is only a proficiency bonus that changes with levels unlike previous systems which had attack bonus, saving throw bonuses even armor bonus as sepsrate progression. In this edition there is only proficiency bonus and to make it even simpler it is same for all classes. All classes starts with +2 prof bonus and gains +1 after each 4th level (5th, 9th, 13th, 17th) also when you multiclass you get proficiency bonus of your total character level not individual class levels so a level 10 fighter has same proficiency bonus as level 2 fighter/level 2 rogue/level 2 cleric/level 2 sorcerer/level 2 monk. Prof bonus effects skills, saving throws, attack bonuses although there is armor proficiencies they are not effected by prof bonus (or there was no mention of that in the specific sections)


2)Since only numerical changing aspect same for all classes you noly need to note what your class brings with each level and that is about it. A Fighter is still better at its job depending on choice of options that were presented but by default fighters are currently only class that can have more than two attacks in a round and since there is no multi attack penalty anymore, they are a good option to multiclass into if only to get extra attack action (still requires 5th level fighter. Each class can have a bonus action during a turn but fighters (and some other classes) extra attack is part of their attack action so while other classes can do 2 actions (1 normal, 1 bonus) in a round a fighter can do two (three or four) attacks and a bonus action


3) at the beginning of equipment chapter under selling treasure it mentions that magical items other than potions and scrools should be hard to find and magics value is beyond simple gold. Which seems an attempt to justify why they didn't put magical items into Players handbook and quiet frankly I didn't like this approach. Maybe for a game that is in historical world or a low magical one this sounds plausible but for settings like Forgotten realms or eberron where magic is part of life this doesn't fit.


4) no detailed gods. Pantheons have a paragraph that define how mortals interact with gods and there is a table that shows which god represents what and that is all. On bonus side the book has greek, egypt and norse pnatheons too.


5) Races are more detailed than 3.x/4th edition somewhat.


6) 20 is maximum attribute cap for adventurers and for monsters and gods it is 30 and that is it personnaly I like this no more people who can move mountains if they were big enough. (dont forget there is no magical items in the book and old enhancing attribute spells are changed until I read all spells i cant say if magic can break this barrier) at every 4th level (except instead of 20th you get it at 19th) you get 2 attribute point to distribute as you like cap is still applies. As an optional rule you can get a feat instead of 2 attribute points and considering current system I don't see why you won't. As a comparision new feats are powerful and most if not all worth more than 2 attribute points IMHO..


This is my first impression as I read the book and others released I will add more.
 
Weird. Until about 20 minutes ago I was only vaguely aware there was a new version. I totally didn't even realise there'd been a 4th!


My last playing in any D&D was circa '98 with AD&D - played a little with a few settings but the group really wasn't that bothered. Ended up moving over to the more open WoD stuff at the time.


Still looks like it's class and level based? I prefer open classless and level-less systems - Is there any draw here to D&D? I have some of the 3.5 stuff (PG and DMG) so I could use the IK setting stuff which was awesome ... but I never got the mechanics and only read the setting material for IK. The 3.5 books haven't even ever been opened.


What's the "sell" to class and level systems beyond "It's what I grew up playing hence I like it." They seem specifically limiting; as in "You're a fighter, you fight, don't do anything else, you're not allowed. All your tweaks and bonuses are purely for fighting. Be a fighter dammit!" which is something I take pains to avoid.


Is it possible to play without levels/classes and use it more as a tool-box? Or is that not even an option?
 
Been trying to put together a group for DnD next for a chat game, but seems like no one is willing to bite for being the DM... I feel like the only way I'll get a really good grip on the game is if I play it myself :/
 
Inquisitor said:
I was in on the early beta testing releases back a year or more ago. It was... A welcome relief from what 4th Edition was, but I don't think it's completely a step in the right direction. They have indeed tried to fix a lot of their previous problems, but it's not quite there yet, I feel. It's working toward it, though. I just hope that they address the biggest issue of all time from 3.5: oversaturation with material and source books. That was the most painful thing ever to experience.
.


I'll jump on the Pathfinder/3.5 bandwagon, though. They really are just better, objectively. Then again, when compared to 4th Edition, it's hard to be worse. I'll probably be there to give it a go-around when the time comes, though. It should be interesting to give NEXT a shot.
Click to expand...
As much as I LOVE Pathfinder over 4e I can't agree with you that it is objectively better, that is an opinion, people like what they like. Some people think move A is better than movie B, neither is right or wrong, they are opinions. Some people love 4e (I'm not one of them--I a few things they did but overall it was not for me) but I can't say those people are wrong just as I can't say that people who hate Citizen Kane are wrong even though it is placed at the top of many "best film ever" lists.

JayTee said:
The idea that there is a god/dess of magic has always annoyed me, so I can't say I'm sorry to hear she got offed. The other stuff seems lame, though.
Click to expand...
Funny never thought about it that way, but then again in some of my games there are gods for every thing and concept (sort of a Celestial Bureaucracy thing), so yes technically there is a very minor god of pocket lint. If the gods could use magic I just can't see them leaving that concept "free" of someones control--even if that someone/thing is some nebulous force the powers that be don't understand themselves (Which is a tactic I have use in games in the past).
[QUOTE="El Phantasmo]Weird. Until about 20 minutes ago I was only vaguely aware there was a new version. I totally didn't even realise there'd been a 4th!
My last playing in any D&D was circa '98 with AD&D - played a little with a few settings but the group really wasn't that bothered. Ended up moving over to the more open WoD stuff at the time.


Still looks like it's class and level based? I prefer open classless and level-less systems - Is there any draw here to D&D? I have some of the 3.5 stuff (PG and DMG) so I could use the IK setting stuff which was awesome ... but I never got the mechanics and only read the setting material for IK. The 3.5 books haven't even ever been opened.


What's the "sell" to class and level systems beyond "It's what I grew up playing hence I like it." They seem specifically limiting; as in "You're a fighter, you fight, don't do anything else, you're not allowed. All your tweaks and bonuses are purely for fighting. Be a fighter dammit!" which is something I take pains to avoid.


Is it possible to play without levels/classes and use it more as a tool-box? Or is that not even an option?

[/QUOTE]
Over the years since the old D&D white box I have gone back a forth over leveless vs. leveled systems and I think they both have their ups and downs. I have seen some "leveless/classless systems when the PC's end up being jacks of all trades but masters of none. With 3x/Pathfinder I think the fighter is a fighter and can't be anything else has gone away somewhat. I have yet to pick up 5e but the review I have read seem to indicate that you can be even more versatile in this version--but I'll have to see for myself. But I know with the application of some multi-classing and some clever feat choices I have made many a fighter who was way more that just a fighter. (If you have not opened 3x or Pathfinder, feats really did open up the pigeon-holing that was present in 2e) Sure you'll never out wizard the wizard if you multi-class but even in most any classless/leveless system I know the person that puts all their points into combat skills or traits is going to be better that the person who spreads them out over several areas. Sure classes can be limiting in some ways and I used to eschew them myself but I eventually found myself craving them every now and then--maybe it is just nostalgia--but there it is.


If by IK you mean Iron Kingdoms I prefer the actual Iron Kingdoms RPG, even though it is class (actually professions) based, you get to pick two professions making for a huge range of character options and combinations.


All of that nuttiness said--can anyone give their thoughts on the versatility of 5e? For instance, I hear anyone can buy the Ritual Magic Feat so your fighter could be an out of combat caster. After 4e I had no intention of even considering 5e but so far the reviews are making me lean toward picking up a copy. Not too worried about settings--even thought I loved the 2/3e versions of Faerun I tend to use my own settings nowadays--standard settings tend to attract "experts" who "know" the setting better than you do and they love to point it out at every turn, so I tend to only use published settings for more obscure games.
 
From what I've seen of 5E so far, I like it on its own merits, but I'm still having a hard time swallowing just how much of it (particularly the classes), regardless of how balanced they are, are almost literally ripped from other game systems (like Pathfinder) and slapped down word for word with a change of name. (Sorcerous Origins my shiny metal butt, I'm looking at you.)
 
PirateLexi said:
From what I've seen of 5E so far, I like it on its own merits, but I'm still having a hard time swallowing just how much of it (particularly the classes), regardless of how balanced they are, are almost literally ripped from other game systems (like Pathfinder) and slapped down word for word with a change of name. (Sorcerous Origins my shiny metal butt, I'm looking at you.)
Click to expand...
Yeah I had heard some of that--but I suppose that since Pathfinder owes its existence to the OGL from 3x that while it is not fair, it is also not unexpected. D&D needed its mojo back so I can't say I am surprised they stole what worked. I mean there were 10 years between 1e and 2e and again between 2e and 3e, the fact that it is only 6 years after 4e and the play test started only 4 years after 4e mans they had to be talking about it in house 1-2 years before that. Those numbers alone should say something. 
I only just now found the basic PDF for free on the Wizard site that give a pretty good overview of the system (115 pages selected from the PHB and 61 from the DMG). Looking rather good so far, my only big beef is the one I have long had with D&D and it's derivatives, that being the fact that all XP comes from killing (defeating) stuff. Fortunately it is the easiest of issues for a DM to rectify. I of course allow people to gain the xp if they circumvent an encounter in a clever way without having to engage in combat--sadly the "official"/tournament rules don't allow for that.
 
hellrazoromega said:
I only just now found the basic PDF for free on the Wizard site that give a pretty good overview of the system (115 pages selected from the PHB and 61 from the DMG). Looking rather good so far, my only big beef is the one I have long had with D&D and it's derivatives, that being the fact that all XP comes from killing (defeating) stuff. Fortunately it is the easiest of issues for a DM to rectify. I of course allow people to gain the xp if they circumvent an encounter in a clever way without having to engage in combat--sadly the "official"/tournament rules don't allow for that.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think I've ever had a DM that gave xp Only for combat.


Then again, almost every DM I've had comes from a background of running stuff like WoD as well where XP is just given for being cool and doing stuff.
 
PirateLexi said:
I honestly don't think I've ever had a DM that gave xp Only for combat.
Then again, almost every DM I've had comes from a background of running stuff like WoD as well where XP is just given for being cool and doing stuff.
Click to expand...
Yeah when I started RPing the options other than D&D were very few and most of them followed the D&D model early on. That changed over time but if you ever play in an official con game sponsored by Wizards or Pazio, even today, the standard killing stuff method is how you gain xp. Circumventing combat earns you a lesser amount at best, if it is possible at all. In the late 70s and early 80s we did it the standard way because we didn't know any better, I just wish 5e embraced non-combat xp a bit more. One of the things I did like about 4e was skill challenges, a great idea that was poorly executed. With some tweaking I adapted it as a way to get some more non-combat xp into D&D. I would have liked to have seen Wizards clean and up and make it "official" non-combat xp earner in 5e.
 
I've always given out xp for completion of storyline events and completion of encounters (including non-combat encounters), myself.


Granted, I don't htink I'm a good DM, but I at least favored non-combat XP over combat-xp only...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

cinnamonville
Experiences ✶ what were your guys first roleplays? <3
Replies
18
Views
453
oddbear
oddbear
true force
Advice/Help How is rp different here and what are the norms
Replies
1
Views
136
Onmyoji
Onmyoji
WanderLust.
Viewpoint What Do You Look For in an RP?
Replies
9
Views
274
Jet
Jet
Sour Diesel
Advice/Help Dice bot integration?
Replies
1
Views
57
Onmyoji
Onmyoji
actuallysweet
Advice/Help How do I continue this character without his roleplay?
Replies
5
Views
184
actuallysweet
actuallysweet
Back
Top